If it is the intention of the architects of this flawed version to exclude older hardware, then, that is not a crime against humanity, but, it would be useful, and save bandwidth on the forum, if that fact could be acknowledged, up front, honestly.

Caieng that is not our attention at all. In fact I'm waiting for Daniel to test a new version of the installer if it works then I will publish a 4.1 version of beta4 which hopefully corrects the error. We certainly want this to be as perfect as possible as the developers have put in almost a year of sweat in to this release and we pride ourselves in stable releases. The beta cycle is all about squishing these types of bugs so hang in there we will get it solved.

If it is the intention of the architects of this flawed version to exclude older hardware, then, that is not a crime against humanity, but, it would be useful, and save bandwidth on the forum, if that fact could be acknowledged, up front, honestly.

Caieng that is not our attention at all. In fact I'm waiting for Daniel to test a new version of the installer if it works then I will publish a 4.1 version of beta4 which hopefully corrects the error. We certainly want this to be as perfect as possible as the developers have put in almost a year of sweat in to this release and we pride ourselves in stable releases. The beta cycle is all about squishing these types of bugs so hang in there we will get it solved.

cheers,Vec

I whole heartedly agree. We aren't skipping anything, we're just not able to make a reply onto everything mentioned. This is a beta release, designed for the purpose of finding bugs that need to be resolved. Thanks for the reports and please keep 'em coming in.

P.S. Just because some will say that they were able to install successfully, even though some others were not, this helps the developers in a big way. For example it lets them know it is not consistent, so they don't have to waste time going through the general stuff. I don't think anyone is posting sucessful installs to cover up unsuccessful installs, it's just a matter of what they've experienced with their particular system setup, and visa-versa.

Out of curiosity, what are the minimum RAM requirements for running the GUI installer? I don't know if it's down around 90mb or up near 700mb. I'm just wondering if I happen to be running into a limited RAM situation.

Out of curiosity, what are the minimum RAM requirements for running the GUI installer? I don't know if it's down around 90mb or up near 700mb. I'm just wondering if I happen to be running into a limited RAM situation.

I forget, but I can say that I only have 256Megs ram in one of my testing mahcines. The installer is able to run there. However that amount of ram is not shared with graphics or anything either, and that may make a difference.

Could not connect to wicd's D-Bus interface. Check the wicd log for error messages.

EDIT: Sorry, my bad, I am not on Beta4, but rather Beta3 with the all the KDE 4.4 deps, packages and extras installed. Thought I had installed Beta4, but just remembered I didn't have time last night....

Regarding this OpenOffice.org package, it won't let me open more than one file by clicking on them. I had to go back to my own repackaging of 3.2.0.

Joe,

As far as the OpenOffice.org package built from source goes, it includes some patches to it to allow for KDE 4 integration, including using the KDE 4 file picker. I think the issue is with the file picker, not with OpenOffice. FWIW, I was able to open multiple files from the File -> Open dialog by control-clicking on the files. IIRC, that's the normal way to open multiple files, even with the GTK dialog box.

HTH a bit. Let me know if I'm way off base or if I'm misunderstanding your issue.

Just made a test install of B4 on my old sharp mebius laptop (PC-GP10-BM) , installer still couldn't find Savage3 video card driver, so No GUI installer could be loaded at all..so I 'd got to use B1 cd to boot into GUI installer then B4 iso image on hard disk could be found and started to install B4.

...just looked there is no r128 driver in the new X.org maybe a symlink to the ati driver will solve it?

Umm, no. In my opinion, this is not the appropriate modus operandi. Adding this or that bit, here and there, willy nilly to the installer, is not proper software engineering.

Once Daniel's machine works, then what? Once newt's machine works, then what? One requires an installation software that is bullet proof, not an ad hoc collection of this or that, tacked on fancifully, as if painting a cubist landscape. This SOHO release has to be an effort reminiscent of the most mundane activity in engineering 101: THOROUGH, ACCURATE, and most importantly --> COMPLETED in accordance with the specifications' document. Is there a specifications' document for this project? Perhaps there is no requirement for a graphics installer that accommodates ten year old hardware?

But, if there is such a specification, that is, a requirement, that this newest Vector SOHO release function properly on any PIII system, irrespective of graphics controller, then the installer software must embrace all of those hardware components found, and regulated well, by windows 95, i.e. software that is fifteen years old!!! In my offices, that includes Firewire cameras....hahaha! (none of that new fangled USB junk for me!!!)

FWIW, I was able to open multiple files from the File -> Open dialog by control-clicking on the files. IIRC, that's the normal way to open multiple files, even with the GTK dialog box.

HTH a bit. Let me know if I'm way off base or if I'm misunderstanding your issue.

I was clicking on files on the Desktop. The first one opened an OOorg window, but clicking others later, while the first window remained open, would do nothing. It looked almost as if the Desktop had gone modal, except it was only for OOorg and also I could see the icons "react", so it was probably just refusing to open a new instance. Anyway, the "real" OpenOffice.org has no such issue.

BTW, shouldn't our package be named openoffice.org instead of plain openoffice? It is the official application name and the repackaging slackbuilds you find on slackbuilds.org or slacky.eu use the full name.

Logged

O'Neill (RE the Asgard): "Usually they ask nicely before they ignore us and do what they damn well please."http://joe1962.bigbox.infoRunning: VL 7 Std 64 + self-cooked XFCE-4.10

Newt..............just looked there is no r128 driver in the new X.org maybe a symlink to the ati driver will solve it? Try it in tui mode let me know.

Thanks,Vec

I had tried this with B4, but just gave it another shot with B4.1. To do this I booted to 'gui 2', logged in as root, and created a simlink (ln -s ati_drv.so r128_drv.so) from within the /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers directory. It still does not work. Here's the relevant portion of Xorg.0.log:

When I finished installing, I logged in and got a desktop with no icons and no taskbar/panel. I tried starting kicker from xterm but it apparently wasn't installed. Does KDE4 not use kicker anymore? Is this maybe a consequence of the installer failing when I tried to create a user? I entered the user's information (name/password) and clicked "Add User". I got an error message and the installer quit. I seem to recall a problem with the "Add User" part previously...

BTW, shouldn't our package be named openoffice.org instead of plain openoffice? It is the official application name and the repackaging slackbuilds you find on slackbuilds.org or slacky.eu use the full name.

The openoffice package is actually built with the go-oo source. I think the openoffice.org package is built from the upstream directly from openoffice.org source. Not sure if this is the case, but I think that might be what is going on?

Yes, but I remember a while back the big discussion on the web about it and the big effort they put into making it clear that the name of the app was openoffice.org, because openoffice by itself was owned by someone else.

Logged

O'Neill (RE the Asgard): "Usually they ask nicely before they ignore us and do what they damn well please."http://joe1962.bigbox.infoRunning: VL 7 Std 64 + self-cooked XFCE-4.10

Through a very roundabout method, I've managed to get the xf86-video-r128-6.8.1-i486-1vl60 graphics drivers copied over to the live installer environment and have been able to actually get X started. To me it would seem that the problem is that the installer simply does not have the appropriate graphics drivers for my ati rage 128 based card. I have not continued through the installation process yet but will later today or tomorrow.

I keep forgetting to mention what happens when the installer is allowed to boot by itself. If left to boot by itself (pressing F2 to see details), after I see 'logging in as root', the system switches to init 6, spits out the CD, and reboots. I've seen this exact problem mentioned in a previous bug thread.